Dunn to the White Sox (p. 12)

[Clem Fandango]

Partialy on a previously discussed topic, but it looks like the White Sox did re-sign Pierzinski, and the Blue Jays did not get him as previously reported

[UK1679666180]

i like dunn, but not for this contract.

With the market being established by the contracts of Martinez and Huff, it really is a good deal for the Sox. There's only a 2-3 mil diff between Dunn and them and the production difference is likely far greater than the dollar diff equates to. In an open market, the extra 2 mil will bring a marginal reliever/utility glove.

[dew1679666265]

Colossal failure on the part of Mr. Tom Ricketts. This is [expletive].

 

You're quickly becoming my favorite NSBB novelty acct.

 

"Grr...Ricketts...grumble...grumble..."

 

I can't remember the last time I criticized the Family before yesterday.

 

The Africa trip comes to mind immediately.

 

I really don't see what's to complain about Ricketts here. If he didn't authorize Hendry paying a 31 year old $14 mil a year for 4 years,then that's a pretty good call. If Hendry just decided to go another route other than paying $56 mil for a 31 year old then Ricketts wasn't involved at all.

[dew1679666265]

i like dunn, but not for this contract.

With the market being established by the contracts of Martinez and Huff, it really is a good deal for the Sox. There's only a 2-3 mil diff between Dunn and them and the production difference is likely far greater than the dollar diff equates to. In an open market, the extra 2 mil will bring a marginal reliever/utility glove.

 

It's a better deal for an AL team than an NL team, I think. They can play Dunn at DH some (a lot later in the contract, I'd say) and negate some of the negative impact of his defense and prolong his likely productivity.

[jersey cubs fan]

If he didn't authorize Hendry paying a 31 year old $14 mil a year for 4 years,then that's a pretty good call.

 

That is not a good call at all. That's terrible ownership. My guess is Hendry just didn't want to spend the portion of his budget on Dunn. But if Ricketts didn't authorize it then he's a much worse owner than I suspected.

[UMFan83]

I just think it's odd to immediately blame the owner for being cheap and not wanting to spend to win just because they didn't acquire the baseball player you wanted. Maybe they have a different plan. While I wasn't thrilled with the draft, and while I'll admit that the Cubs have seemed a little frugal since the Ricketts family has taken over, by no means am I ready to accuse them of not wanting to do what it takes.

[dew1679666265]

Understood.

 

Earlier dew pointed out that signing Dunn to this deal would've been "a different story" if the Cubs were better positioned to contend for the WS.

 

And I'm saying the Cubs took that same "one player away" mindset into the Bradley situation. As we all know, that ended very poorly.

 

For some reason that was labeled a "really, really ridiculous take." I dunno, seems spot on to me. :shrug:

 

Bradley and Dunn are two very different players. By signing Bradley, there was a very good chance we wouldn't have him for significant portions of every year of his deal. It was very possible (and this is why I argued against him at the time) that we wouldn't get any value out of him if he stayed injured all the time.

 

With Dunn, there are no injury concerns and I'm pretty confident he'll give good to great value the first couple years of the deal. If we were already a good team and looking to be great, trading two good to very good years of Dunn for, potentially, two bad years is a good trade. With Bradley, there was a very realistic chance we wouldn't have gotten one full good year out of him - that's why signing him as the "last piece of the puzzle" is a bad idea.

 

I was in favor of signing Dunn that offseason, for what it's worth.

[jersey cubs fan]

I just think it's odd to immediately blame the owner for being cheap and not wanting to spend to win just because they didn't acquire the baseball player you wanted. Maybe they have a different plan. While I wasn't thrilled with the draft, and while I'll admit that the Cubs have seemed a little frugal since the Ricketts family has taken over, by no means am I ready to accuse them of not wanting to do what it takes.

 

Since it's going to take firing Hendry to get it done and they don't want to replace him then I am going to say they aren't doing what it takes. The money issue is a little disappointing but somewhat expected since Hendry did such a poor job with all the money he was already allowed to spend.

[Sammy Sofa]

because adam dunn is the difference between the cubs being decent and bad, while the hope is that bradley was the difference between being very good and world champion.

Understood.

 

Earlier dew pointed out that signing Dunn to this deal would've been "a different story" if the Cubs were better positioned to contend for the WS.

 

And I'm saying the Cubs took that same "one player away" mindset into the Bradley situation. As we all know, that ended very poorly.

 

For some reason that was labeled a "really, really ridiculous take." I dunno, seems spot on to me. :shrug:

 

Because it's really, really ridiculous. Adam Dunn and Bradley are completely different in every sense of the word and Dunn IS the type of player that can put a team over the top. There was no reason for the Cubs to go into next season effectively surrendering in such a weak division, and that's what they've effectively done by not landing the one difference-maker FA they had a shot at getting on the market right now. People can spin it all they want, by any combination of dinking and dunking moves they make instead of getting Dunn isn't going to do anything except almost certainly result in a mediocre team that can't even compete in a division this weak. Your overgeneralization is a silly take on this, and the Cubs easily could have been just one player away given their competition, and Dunn is that type of player. To compare it to Bradley in any way is just absurd. The Cubs very realistically were just a Dunn away from being competitive and having a real shot given the circumstances of their division whereas Bradley was nothing but an oft-injured role player at best. You're drastically undervaluing Dunn's impact on this team to make your point.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Sammy Sofa

[dew1679666265]

If he didn't authorize Hendry paying a 31 year old $14 mil a year for 4 years,then that's a pretty good call.

 

That is not a good call at all. That's terrible ownership. My guess is Hendry just didn't want to spend the portion of his budget on Dunn. But if Ricketts didn't authorize it then he's a much worse owner than I suspected.

 

He's a much worse owner than you suspected because he doesn't want to chance having two bad contracts for a year or two in exchange for going from a mediocre team to a slightly less mediocre team?

 

Like I said, with Dunn next year we're a borderline playoff team. If Ricketts didn't deem that worthy of paying him $28 million his age 33 and 34 years, I'm fine with that. If we were a better team right now, I'd have a different view but potentially saddling ourselves with a bad contract for an old player just isn't a good idea in our position - especially with Soriano already on the books.

[UK1679666180]

i like dunn, but not for this contract.

With the market being established by the contracts of Martinez and Huff, it really is a good deal for the Sox. There's only a 2-3 mil diff between Dunn and them and the production difference is likely far greater than the dollar diff equates to. In an open market, the extra 2 mil will bring a marginal reliever/utility glove.

 

It's a better deal for an AL team than an NL team, I think. They can play Dunn at DH some (a lot later in the contract, I'd say) and negate some of the negative impact of his defense and prolong his likely productivity.

It can hide it better having him DH but with his bat, there is still likely a large net gain had the Cubs needed a LF'er or in their case had him end up being a fringy defender at 1B. Its a luxury a NL team can have and is worth the risk.

Edited December 3, 2010 by UK

[shnsajax]

If he didn't authorize Hendry paying a 31 year old $14 mil a year for 4 years,then that's a pretty good call.

 

That is not a good call at all. That's terrible ownership. My guess is Hendry just didn't want to spend the portion of his budget on Dunn. But if Ricketts didn't authorize it then he's a much worse owner than I suspected.

 

That and its no secret that Hendry is very interested in AGone. Plus I would take Fielder over Dunn as well. As long as we land one of those two next season passing on Dunn is a good thing. The 4th year on Dunn decreased a lot of my interest in him. He belongs in the AL and he went to the AL.

[jersey cubs fan]

If he didn't authorize Hendry paying a 31 year old $14 mil a year for 4 years,then that's a pretty good call.

 

That is not a good call at all. That's terrible ownership. My guess is Hendry just didn't want to spend the portion of his budget on Dunn. But if Ricketts didn't authorize it then he's a much worse owner than I suspected.

 

He's a much worse owner than you suspected because he doesn't want to chance having two bad contracts for a year or two in exchange for going from a mediocre team to a slightly less mediocre team?

 

If he's getting involved and nixing such relatively small deals as Dunn that is bad. Ricketts is a pretty dumb baseball fan. That is obvious. He doesn't know crap about the game. I'm hoping he'll hire the right people and let them make decisions. If he doesn't trust Hendry to make such a move then he shouldn't be GM. If he does trust him but nixed it because of the size of the contract, which wasn't out of line by any stretch of the imagination, then he's horrible.

[Sammy Sofa]

I can only assume that the people terrified over the idea of paying Dunn big money when he's 33 and 34 somehow expect the Cubs to magically be able to sign Adrian Gonzalez only to a 2-3 year contract when he's a FA.

[dew1679666265]

There was no reason for the Cubs to go into next season effectively surrendering in such a weak division, and that's what they've effectively done by not landing the one difference-maker FA they had a shot at getting on the market right now. People can spin it all they want, by any combination of dinking and dunking moves they make instead of getting Dunn isn't going to do anything except almost certainly result in a mediocre team that can't even compete in a division this weak.

 

Dunn was worth 3.9 wins last year and just over 1 win before that. Assuming he's at least a slightly below average 1st baseman as he was last year, then somewhere in the 3-win range is about what should be expected.

 

In 2009, the last time Nick Johnson was fully healthy, he was a 2.5 win player. We can get him for next to nothing, most likely, and still have money to go get a quality backup since he's unlikely to stay healthy all year. Is 1-2 extra wins worth about $45-50 million extra for a 31 year old player?

 

Last year in just about the worst possible scenario for Carlos Pena, he was a 1 win player. The previous two years he was a 2.8 win player and a 4.0 win player. He'll come significantly cheaper than Dunn (in both money and years) and is more likely than not to rebound to close to 2009, if not 2008.

 

As unlikely as it is that we acquire him, Alex Gordon is a potential stud. In the only two years the Royals have felt like playing him a full season, he's been a 2.1 and 2.3 WAR player. I'd rather work a Colvin/etc trade for Gordon than sign Dunn.

 

The risk for the other options outside of Dunn are much, much smaller than $56 mil for a 31 year old player and yet the rewards are within a win or so of Dunn. Why is it such a good idea for a team that might be a contender in a weak division to overpay for him?

[dew1679666265]

If he's getting involved and nixing such relatively small deals as Dunn that is bad. Ricketts is a pretty dumb baseball fan. That is obvious. He doesn't know crap about the game. I'm hoping he'll hire the right people and let them make decisions. If he doesn't trust Hendry to make such a move then he shouldn't be GM. If he does trust him but nixed it because of the size of the contract, which wasn't out of line by any stretch of the imagination, then he's horrible.

 

4/56 for a 31 year old player isn't all that small a deal. It's not 10/160 or anything, but it's a significant portion of a budget, especially when a team is already saddled with close to $20 mil a year with one terrible contract (Soriano).

[jersey cubs fan]

If he's getting involved and nixing such relatively small deals as Dunn that is bad. Ricketts is a pretty dumb baseball fan. That is obvious. He doesn't know crap about the game. I'm hoping he'll hire the right people and let them make decisions. If he doesn't trust Hendry to make such a move then he shouldn't be GM. If he does trust him but nixed it because of the size of the contract, which wasn't out of line by any stretch of the imagination, then he's horrible.

 

4/56 for a 31 year old player isn't all that small a deal. It's not 10/160 or anything, but it's a significant portion of a budget, especially when a team is already saddled with close to $20 mil a year with one terrible contract (Soriano).

 

It's an incredibly small deal for an owner of a non-failing franchise to nix. I can't believe you'd pretend otherwse.

[Sammy Sofa]

There was no reason for the Cubs to go into next season effectively surrendering in such a weak division, and that's what they've effectively done by not landing the one difference-maker FA they had a shot at getting on the market right now. People can spin it all they want, by any combination of dinking and dunking moves they make instead of getting Dunn isn't going to do anything except almost certainly result in a mediocre team that can't even compete in a division this weak.

 

Dunn was worth 3.9 wins last year and just over 1 win before that. Assuming he's at least a slightly below average 1st baseman as he was last year, then somewhere in the 3-win range is about what should be expected.

 

In 2009, the last time Nick Johnson was fully healthy, he was a 2.5 win player. We can get him for next to nothing, most likely, and still have money to go get a quality backup since he's unlikely to stay healthy all year. Is 1-2 extra wins worth about $45-50 million extra for a 31 year old player?

 

Last year in just about the worst possible scenario for Carlos Pena, he was a 1 win player. The previous two years he was a 2.8 win player and a 4.0 win player. He'll come significantly cheaper than Dunn (in both money and years) and is more likely than not to rebound to close to 2009, if not 2008.

 

As unlikely as it is that we acquire him, Alex Gordon is a potential stud. In the only two years the Royals have felt like playing him a full season, he's been a 2.1 and 2.3 WAR player. I'd rather work a Colvin/etc trade for Gordon than sign Dunn.

 

The risk for the other options outside of Dunn are much, much smaller than $56 mil for a 31 year old player and yet the rewards are within a win or so of Dunn. Why is it such a good idea for a team that might be a contender in a weak division to overpay for him?

 

Because Dunn is a proven offensive asset who is relatively affordable and that's what the Cubs need right now. Not someone with potential, not a reclamation project and not even older and obviously declining players. Based on the going contracts Dunn is barely being overpaid, so quit talking like he's shamelessly robbing a bank.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Sammy Sofa

[dew1679666265]

I can only assume that the people terrified over the idea of paying Dunn big money when he's 33 and 34 somehow expect the Cubs to magically be able to sign Adrian Gonzalez only to a 2-3 year contract when he's a FA.

 

Different situations. Our ceiling next year is a borderline playoff team - whether we got Dunn or not. The next year would be our best shot to have a good Dunn and a good team. After that, the possibility gets much higher that we have two bad contracts hindering our upside as we should be a very competitive team. With Gonzalez, he should be very good to great for the first 2-3 years of the contract at least - which lines up right with when this roster should begin moving upward rapidly.

 

Also, I'm not terrified of paying Dunn at 33-34 years old. I can understand why you would want him and he definitely makes us better, I just don't see the reward being higher than the risk that he tanks for a year or two.

[jersey cubs fan]

I can only assume that the people terrified over the idea of paying Dunn big money when he's 33 and 34 somehow expect the Cubs to magically be able to sign Adrian Gonzalez only to a 2-3 year contract when he's a FA.

 

Different situations. Our ceiling next year is a borderline playoff team - whether we got Dunn or not. The next year would be our best shot to have a good Dunn and a good team. After that, the possibility gets much higher that we have two bad contracts hindering our upside as we should be a very competitive team. With Gonzalez, he should be very good to great for the first 2-3 years of the contract at least - which lines up right with when this roster should begin moving upward rapidly.

 

Also, I'm not terrified of paying Dunn at 33-34 years old. I can understand why you would want him and he definitely makes us better, I just don't see the reward being higher than the risk that he tanks for a year or two.

 

Terrified? That's kind of crazy. The guy has patience and power. Those things tend to last. He may struggled in his mid-30's, but if you are terrified of paying Dunn at 34 you have to be terrified of paying pretty much any free agent in baseball.

[Sammy Sofa]

I can only assume that the people terrified over the idea of paying Dunn big money when he's 33 and 34 somehow expect the Cubs to magically be able to sign Adrian Gonzalez only to a 2-3 year contract when he's a FA.

 

Different situations. Our ceiling next year is a borderline playoff team - whether we got Dunn or not. The next year would be our best shot to have a good Dunn and a good team. After that, the possibility gets much higher that we have two bad contracts hindering our upside as we should be a very competitive team. With Gonzalez, he should be very good to great for the first 2-3 years of the contract at least - which lines up right with when this roster should begin moving upward rapidly.

 

Also, I'm not terrified of paying Dunn at 33-34 years old. I can understand why you would want him and he definitely makes us better, I just don't see the reward being higher than the risk that he tanks for a year or two.

 

This is laughable. This recurring idea that Dunn is going to fall off a cliff after the next two seasons keeps getting spat out like it's fact. Gonzalez would be 33 just 3 years after the Cubs would sign him as a FA; why is he such a lock to perform at that age? You're talking like they're night and day offensively and health-wise when they're not, and you're advocating paying someone much more money and giving them more years using that logic.

[dew1679666265]

Because Dunn is a proven offensive asset who is relatively affordable and that's what the Cubs need right now. Not someone with potential, not a reclamation project and not even older and obviously declining players. Based on the going contracts Dunn is barely being overpaid, so quit talking like he's shamelessly robbing a bank.

 

Dunn is a proven asset who could be worth only 1-2 wins over the other options and will cost $40-50 million more over 3 more years. And he'd be coming to a team that may not even be a playoff team with him. It's simply not worth the investment.

 

And he's not robbing a bank. He's a good player, but not the right addition in our position. It's a desperation move hoping to catch lightning in a bottle for a year or two. After that, there's a better than average chance he declines quite a bit for two years.

 

I'm not arguing against Dunn as a player, I'm arguing against him in our situation when his best years will likely be our worst.

[Sammy Sofa]

I can only assume that the people terrified over the idea of paying Dunn big money when he's 33 and 34 somehow expect the Cubs to magically be able to sign Adrian Gonzalez only to a 2-3 year contract when he's a FA.

 

Different situations. Our ceiling next year is a borderline playoff team - whether we got Dunn or not. The next year would be our best shot to have a good Dunn and a good team. After that, the possibility gets much higher that we have two bad contracts hindering our upside as we should be a very competitive team. With Gonzalez, he should be very good to great for the first 2-3 years of the contract at least - which lines up right with when this roster should begin moving upward rapidly.

 

Also, I'm not terrified of paying Dunn at 33-34 years old. I can understand why you would want him and he definitely makes us better, I just don't see the reward being higher than the risk that he tanks for a year or two.

 

Terrified? That's kind of crazy. The guy has patience and power. Those things tend to last. He may struggled in his mid-30's, but if you are terrified of paying Dunn at 34 you have to be terrified of paying pretty much any free agent in baseball.

 

Exactly.

[dew1679666265]

Also, I'm not terrified of paying Dunn at 33-34 years old. I can understand why you would want him and he definitely makes us better, I just don't see the reward being higher than the risk that he tanks for a year or two.

 

Terrified? That's kind of crazy. The guy has patience and power. Those things tend to last. He may struggled in his mid-30's, but if you are terrified of paying Dunn at 34 you have to be terrified of paying pretty much any free agent in baseball.

 

Note the word in bold - not terrified. Terrified was Mojo's word and it's not an accurate description of my opinion.

 

My biggest problem with Dunn is that the time he's likely to struggle the most is the time when we'll be peaking. His best years will be when we're a borderline playoff team. If he does age well and doesn't struggle the last two years of his deal, then it would be a good contract and I'm wrong. But it's a risk that I don't think is worth it for this team in the current position.

Edited December 3, 2010 by dew

[shnsajax]

I can only assume that the people terrified over the idea of paying Dunn big money when he's 33 and 34 somehow expect the Cubs to magically be able to sign Adrian Gonzalez only to a 2-3 year contract when he's a FA.

 

Different situations. Our ceiling next year is a borderline playoff team - whether we got Dunn or not. The next year would be our best shot to have a good Dunn and a good team. After that, the possibility gets much higher that we have two bad contracts hindering our upside as we should be a very competitive team. With Gonzalez, he should be very good to great for the first 2-3 years of the contract at least - which lines up right with when this roster should begin moving upward rapidly.

 

Also, I'm not terrified of paying Dunn at 33-34 years old. I can understand why you would want him and he definitely makes us better, I just don't see the reward being higher than the risk that he tanks for a year or two.

 

Terrified? That's kind of crazy. The guy has patience and power. Those things tend to last. He may struggled in his mid-30's, but if you are terrified of paying Dunn at 34 you have to be terrified of paying pretty much any free agent in baseball.

 

Exactly.

 

I wouldn't say terrified as I wanted Dunn. I just want Gonzalez more, that 4th year is not so much a detramint on Dunn as it more so adds more value towards getting Gonzalez instead. If we get no one then avoiding Dunn was a huge mistake. That being said Dunn playing for the White Sox makes more sense for him personally than playing for the Cubs. If we matched the contract there is nothing to suggest that he would still choose the Cubs over the White Sox.